[w3ctag/design-reviews] Response.json() (Issue #741)

Braw mornin' TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Response.json().

`Response.json(body)` is a static method used to construct a Response object from the JSON serialisation of "body". It does what you would want `new Response(body)` to do if that was not ambiguous.

  - Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dTycWmyxLZNGTBW93fvtf1IQahx-vNwgu94yT1x9K50/edit

  - Specification URL: https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-response-json

  - Tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/fetch/api/response/response-static-json.any.html

  - User research: N/A
  - Security and Privacy self-review²: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GicefRvYuPrw2tsb8jdjileomK7TW7xYLkP37oz1FbQ/edit

  - GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/whatwg/fetch

  - Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
      - Adam Rice (ricea), Google, proposing to ship this feature in Chromium.
      - Anne van Kesteren (annevk), Mozilla, specification change reviewer.
      - Luca Casonato (lucacasonato), Deno, specification change author.
  - Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Deno, Mozilla
  - Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/1389

  - External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/14566 https://github.com/nodejs/undici/pull/1452


Further details:

  - [ X ] I have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/)
  - Relevant time constraints or deadlines: As we already have an implementation ready to land, we would like to ship this soon in Chromium.
  - The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: WHATWG
  - The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): WHATWG
  - Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: None
  - This work is being funded by: Google is paying me to write this document. The implementation in Chromium was done by a third-party, as was the specification work.

You should also know that...

It is a very small feature.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

  💬 leave review feedback as a **comment in this issue** and @-notify ricea, annevk, lucacasonato

¹ We require an explainer to give the relevant context for the spec review, even if the spec has some background information. For background, see our [explanation of how to write a good explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/). We recommend the explainer to be in [Markdown](https://github.github.com/gfm/).

² A Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/741

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/741@github.com>